WOW. That’s interesting. Kinda brilliant if it works. Wouldn’t work in the US, unfortunately.
It’s the same thing Brazil did.
He’s rich enough that he’s kind of a parent corporation by himself, so:
X was previously accused of violating the Digital Services Act (DSA), which could result in fines of up to 6 percent of total worldwide annual turnover. That fine would be levied on the “provider” of X, which could be defined to include other Musk-led firms.
But yeah, American law has been limited so the buck stops at the company which declares bankruptcy and the money starts a new company.
Not everyone else system is as shitty
Less considering more doing
DO IT!
fine the fucker for 20% of his net “worth”, that should give him some pause
Not really billions is beyond being halved
(Was drinking when I wrote this, was saying billions is a so much money it’s difficult to conceptualize, seems like folks understood for the most part, but someone said musks money is in stocks etc which is a factor, anyways be well)
Hi I’m a mathematician.
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
I think they’re just saying that if you’re a multi billionaire and get a 50% net worth fine, you’re still a billionaire once it’s done.
Do it. The crimes are almost entirely by him personally, and had unprecedented damage. He should be responsible with all his money - a Twitter-sized blow would be a slap on the wrist as the platform is worth just $5B or thereabouts.
and this is why we dont fuck with the chinese wall
How about making them such a high percentage that it would genuinely impact their bottom line and not a measly amount calculated as “cost of doing business”
4% of gross revenue is not a negligible amount. For no company.
Start at 100% and work down from there?
It’s easy to support when Elon is the recipient, but is this a good precedent to set?
Shipping companies setup separate LLC’s for their ships so of they have an accident the ship goes bankrupt and they keep their profits shielded… that kind of stuff is bullshit
Yes. Like every system, there are those who abuse it. But you must be careful so that while trying to punish those abusers, you don’t end up creating avenues to also punish those who don’t abuse the system, but simply make a mistake. This sets a precedent so that the government can target the assets of the owner of the company if they’re not satisfied the company punishment, which doesn’t sound as cool when the company in question is your family’s bakery or your neighbor’s paralegal office.
Shit take. Get judged by peers
Everyone thanks you for your helpful insight into this topic.
Haters gonna hate
